Differences among Ahl-e-Hadith
The author of Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith also targeted the sub-organizations of Ahl-e-Hadith to vent his frustration, stating that among them are the poor Ahl-e-Hadith, the nobles of Ahl-e-Hadith (may Allah curse the liars), the Muslims of Ahl-e-Hadith, the scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Salafi Ahl-e-Hadith, Athari Ahl-e-Hadith, etc., among whom there are numerous disagreements. (which will be mentioned later) Although having differences of opinion within a group is not evidence of its falsehood or invalidity. It is from here that our contemporaries have become confused, as they use these disagreements among Ahl-e-Hadith to defame us. (They do not even mention their own disagreements) Whereas the Quran testifies that sometimes even the Prophets, peace be upon them, had differences. For example, in Surah Al-Anbiya, there is mention of a difference of opinion between Dawood and Sulaiman, peace be upon them, in a case. In the end, it is stated:
وَكُلًّا آتَيْنَا حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا۔
Meaning, both were granted prophethood and knowledge.
See, the Holy Quran praises them despite their differences of opinion. But our contemporaries criticize us because of these differences. If everywhere the principle is adopted that since there are differences in such and such matters, then trust in everything will be lost. Differences between two judges, two courts, two countries, two households, two brothers have become a norm of life. So does this mean that two differing judges are mad, two different courts are useless, two different countries are heretical, two different households are fuel for hell, and two different brothers are far from the path of the believers and following the way of the Jews? But no knowledgeable person will support this stance. Because there is no group in the world without differences of opinion. If our contemporaries do not trust our words, they should study chapters seven and eight of their respected teacher’s work (Al-Kalam Al-Mufid), where solid and authentic references are cited regarding the differences among the Prophets, the Companions, and the angels based on clear texts from the Quran and Hadith, and mention is also made of the differences among the four Imams and Mujtahids. At one place, it is stated that
The scholars who follow (taqlid) are not merely those who are poor in knowledge. They examine and scrutinize the validity and weakness of arguments and abandon their Imam’s position in weak arguments. Nevertheless, they are fundamentally followers (muqallid). Imams Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad, and Imam Tahawi, among others, have presented arguments against Imam Abu Hanifa by name in dozens of issues.
Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi Hanafi (may Allah have mercy on him) says that
انهما خالفا أبا حنيفة في ثلثى مذهبه
That is, Imam Ghazali states that Qazi Abu Yusuf and Imam Muhammad differed from Imam Abu Hanifa’s school of thought by one-third (a third part).
Leave our differences aside for a moment and tell us the nature of your differences: why was there disagreement among your elders? Were they also followers of falsehood? If they were like that, then why do you blame us for it? This was such a weighty objection that the author of Tuhfat Ahl al-Hadith neither had an answer for it nor any interpretation, so he outright denied the fact that there was any disagreement among them.
انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون
Dear readers! You may pick up any translated book of Hanafi fiqh and you will become convinced that the author of Tuhfat Ahl al-Hadith is a liar.
Let all these things be known as well. See that in the Hanafi community of the Indian subcontinent, there are Barelvis, Hayati Deobandis, and Mamati Deobandis. Then, if you consider their sub-organizations, these people form nearly a hundred groups. Even now, these people claim unity and harmony and convince outsiders that others are afflicted with discord. They do not hesitate to bestow all kinds of derogatory titles on the Mamati Deobandis, which are shameful even to repeat.
In short, if a group has differences over some partial issues or some doubts, it is not a sign of being far from reason and the right path. Did Hazrat Fatimah (RA) not get upset with Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) over the matter of the Fadak garden? Did Hazrat Ali Al-Murtaza (RA) not pledge allegiance to Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA) after some hesitation? Did Hazrat Ali Al-Murtaza (RA) not fight wars with Amir Muawiyah (RA)? Did two groups not form among the Companions in these circumstances? If all these things happened—and certainly they did—then despite drawing swords against each other, were they not ﴿رحماء بينهم﴾
according to the Quranic text? So if there is some disagreement among Ahl al-Hadith on certain subsidiary matters, why is this considered contrary to their greatness?
The Individual Issues of the Jamaat of Strangers of Ahl al-Hadith and Their Solution
He says, listen, the non-following Maulana Abdul Wahab Multani claimed Imamat.
➊ He says, I am the Imam of the time. Oppressions have started
➋ The Imam of the time is the deputy of his Prophet.
➌ Your allegiance was like that of Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA).
➍ Whoever dies without allegiance to the Imam dies the death of ignorance.
➎ On the days of sacrifice, buying meat worth four or eight annas from the market and distributing it counts as sacrifice.
➏ Also, sacrifice of eggs is permissible.
This was the sect of the Amir of the Jamaat of the strangers of Ahl al-Hadith.
Answer: Firstly: An objection is only accepted when it is agreed upon by the knowledgeable party. Declaring the entire group of the opposing party guilty by raising an objection without consensus is far from reason and justice. Mr. Naser, a Christian, writes addressing Muslims:
What is the meaning of building shrines, worshipping graves, covering them with flower sheets, making vows, and praying at graves? Can’t Allah hear your prayers in a mosque or at home? Until you kneel or bow your forehead before the cages of ten saints, you do not find peace. You have excluded Allah from your life altogether.
Is the objection of that Christian correct who is challenging the entire Muslim Ummah that you have excluded Allah from your life? If not, then certainly not, because attributing the actions of some Muslims to the entire Ummah and holding it responsible is wrong in any case. Similarly, declaring the entire Ahl-e-Hadith group guilty based on the individual ijtihad and opinion of a person from among them is wrong.
Secondly: Undoubtedly, offering sacrifice is not done by simply buying meat and giving it as charity, but this stance is not only that of Maulana Abdul Wahab but also that of the well-known companion Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RA). He gave two dirhams to his servant Ibn Umair and said, “Buy meat from the market with this and tell the seller that this is a sacrifice on behalf of Ibn Abbas (RA).”
The explanation and response you give to the fatwa of Ibn Abbas (RA), consider that the same response is from our side regarding the fatwa of the late Maulana.
You have noticed even the speck in our eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye. Listen, Maulana Ghulam Murshid Sahib Hanafi Deobandi, former preacher of Badshahi Mosque Lahore, once said in an Eid sermon that if the government plans for sacrifice and the price of the animals is paid into a national fund, then the payment of that amount will be considered a religious sacrifice.
This fatwa is more incorrect than Maulana Abdul Wahab’s fatwa and is serious in terms of consequences. As for the issue of sacrificing an egg, he has argued from a hadith.
It is written that in the hadith of Jumu’ah it is mentioned that the person who arrives first on Friday will receive the reward of sacrificing a camel, the one who comes next will receive the reward of sacrificing a cow, the one after that will receive the reward of sacrificing a goat or sheep, the one after that will receive the reward of sacrificing a chicken, and the one who comes after that will receive the reward of sacrificing an egg.
The hadith indicated by Mufti Ghurabaa Ahl-e-Hadith is narrated from Hazrat Abu Huraira (RA) in
, in which the word Hadi is used, meaning sacrifice. In general lexicons, but in this hadith, its usage is in the sense of charity, as clearly stated by Muhaddith Mubarakpuri.
The same has been stated by Hafiz Ibn Hajar.
In short, the most that can be said here is that they made an error in understanding the meaning of the hadith. You must already know that according to the Hanafi school, even if a Mufti makes a mistake, he is still rewarded.
is your evidence. It is a separate matter that his fatwa is actually incorrect. If you do not agree with our hadith, then so be it, but at least study the work of your respected teacher
where he has written extensively on this. Hopefully, you will agree with it.
Then I say! You disagree with Maulana Abdul Wahab Multani, while you have taken the Companions as the standard of truth. Among this sacred group, the fatwa of Hazrat Bilal (RA) and Hazrat Abu Huraira (RA) is that sacrificing a chicken is permissible.
Allama Ibn Hazm has also claimed here that there is no proven disagreement from any companion. Have the courage and refute Ibn Hazm’s claim, otherwise this argument will be against you that even though you consider the companions as the standard of truth, you are still differing from their fatwas. As for our belief and viewpoint, listen carefully that the Quran mentions animals for sacrifice. A sahih hadith states that لا تذبحواالامسنة الا ان يعسر عليكم فتذبحوا جذعة من الضان
Meaning, Hazrat Jabir (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said that in sacrifice, do not slaughter except a two-humped camel. However, if a two-humped camel is not available, then slaughter a sheep.
From this hadith, it is clear that for sacrifice, it is a condition to be musinnah (two-humped camel), and in case of necessity, sacrificing a sheep is permissible.
It is obvious that a bird or an egg can neither be musinnah nor a sheep. For this reason, the fatwas of these companions and Maulana Abdul Wahab are not applicable because they contradict the hadith.
Secondly: The statements you mentioned in points 1, 2, 3, and 4 regarding Mazalim Rupdi are your lies and misrepresentations. We have carefully examined Mazalim Rupdi multiple times, and there is no such statement in it, nor can you present such statements from any book of Maulana Abdul Wahab Multani. Maulana Abdul Wahab Multani says,
“My brother, when have I ever claimed imamate like Abu Bakr Siddiq (RA).”
Dear brother, the point is that when the English forcibly ended the Islamic government in India, Maulana Abdul Wahab founded the Jamaat-e-Ghurabaa. In this, through a consultative system, he was elected as Imam and the rest of the people pledged allegiance to him. The purpose of this was the revival of the Caliphate. It is a separate matter that those people failed in their objective. But the question is, what evidence do you have that such allegiance is illegitimate and forbidden? While issuing a fatwa declaring its prohibition, you should carefully examine the conditions of your own Deobandi sect because among them, the allegiance-givers are still present today. In fact, in your sect, allegiance is even given in the name of deceased elders. Maulana Ubaid-ur-Rahman Muhammadi has given an eyewitness account that in the annual gathering of Raiwind in 1993, Maulana Inam took allegiance on his hand from the Tablighi people in the name of Maulana Muhammad Ilyas. The cassette of this can be obtained from Markaz al-Da’wah wal-Irshad Lahore.
This innovative method of allegiance, where people pledge allegiance in the name of a deceased scholar, did not bother you, but the allegiance of Maulana Abdul Wahab and his group does. Apparently, you love innovation and hate the Sunnah. This is also confirmed by the attitude of the elders of Deoband, who have introduced countless innovations in religion. For this reason, when these people go on Tablighi retreats, they even pray behind those whom they label as innovators and polytheists. Moreover, they neither refute their innovations and polytheistic beliefs nor call for jihad. If you do not believe me, then Maulana Muhammad Ismail Sahib Muhammadi, you come, and the two of us will spend three days in the Tablighi Jamaat, during which instead of the Tablighi curriculum, lessons from the Quran and Sunnah will be taught. These lessons will be given alternately by this writer and you on the topics of Tawheed, following the Sunnah, opposing innovations, and calling for jihad. You may choose any one of these three subjects, and the third will be presented by me and you alternately. However, I say with full confidence and certainty that your elders will not allow this because Deoband is stubborn about Tawheed, loves shirk, is hostile to the Sunnah, and loves innovations, examples of which are found in many books of Deobandi scholars. They are attached to rosaries and hate jihad.
Although Tawheed is the foundation of Islam, following the Sunnah is the way of the believers, and Jihad is the pinnacle of Islam, despite so much love and affection for innovations and innovators, you claim to be Ahl al-Sunnah.
Collective Dua after Salah
You say that non-followers (ghair muqallideen) consider raising hands for dua after obligatory prayers an innovation (bid’ah). Recently, a non-follower Maulvi Bashir ur-Rahman Salafi wrote a book proving that dua after obligatory prayers is not an innovation but Sunnah. Still, you say there is no difference among us.
Answer: Firstly, no one disputes the act of dua itself; the disagreement is about the manner of dua after Salah, where in common mosques the Imam leads the dua collectively with the congregation saying “Ameen” repeatedly behind him. If you have any Shariah evidence supporting this manner and form, please present it.
Secondly: This disagreement is not only among Ahl al-Hadith but also among the innovators of Deoband, and Hakim Imaduddin Hanafi Deobandi has authored an extensive book titled “Al-Tahqiq al-Hasan fi Nafi al-Du’a al-Ijtima’i ba’d al-Fara’id wa al-Sunan,” which consists of two hundred and fifty pages. In it, he has quoted statements from thirty-six prominent Deobandi scholars declaring this supplication an innovation, including Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri
, Maulana Abdul Hay Lakhnawi Hanafi
, Mufti Muhammad Shafi’
, and Maulana Muhammad Yusuf Banuri among other leading Deoband scholars.
Thirdly: Dear readers, the truth is that those who have issued a fatwa declaring it an innovation say that there is absolutely no evidence in the Quran and Hadith proving that supplication in this manner is an act of worship. And any method of worship not transmitted in the Shariah is an innovation. It is stated in a Hadith that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
من عمل عملا ليس عليه أمرنا فهو رد
“Whoever does an action which is not based on our evidence, then it is rejected.”
For this reason, the Hanafi jurists have considered performing Nafl prayers after the two Rak’ahs Sunnah following Fajr as disliked.
لانه عليه السلام لم يزد عليها
“Because the Prophet ﷺ did not pray more than this.”
Whereas all scholars consider collective supplication after prayer as Sunnah, they cite general supplication narrations instead of providing evidence for this.
Maulana Banuri states that
الاحتجاج بالعموم انما ينبغى فيما لم يرد للخاص حكم عليحدة ونفس ثبوت الرفع في الدعاء امر اخر غيران الادعية الله في أثر المكتوبات لم يثبت فيها الرفع
meaning, relying on a general proof is beneficial only where a specific ruling has not been separately revealed. And this is a separate matter within the supplication itself, but raising hands and making supplications after the obligatory prayers is by no means proven from you ﷺ.
A few lines before this, he states that
قد راج في كثير من البلاد الدعاء بهيئة الاجتماعية رافعين ايديهم بعد الصلوت المكتوبة ولم يثبت ذلك في عهده
In many cities, it has become a common practice to raise hands and supplicate collectively after the obligatory prayers, whereas this method was not present during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Do not worry about the thoughts of the Ahl al-Hadith scholars. Have some courage and study the books of Hadith according to Maulana Banuri’s approach, and present an authentic, explicit, elevated, and connected Hadith that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ collectively supplicated after the obligatory prayer. But remember, even if you work hard your entire life, you will fail. When you have no evidence for it, the established Hadith is rejected. If your heart does not accept this Hadith, that is a different matter.
Sacrifice of a Buffalo
It is stated that Professor Abdullah Bahawalpuri (may Allah have mercy on him) considers the sacrifice of a buffalo to be impermissible. Maulvi Sultan Mahmood Jalalpuri considers it permissible. Both are also recognized as Ahl-e-Hadith and both advocate for resolving differences. Both are also averse to fiqh (Hanafi). So why is this difference occurring?
Answer: Firstly, the issue of sacrificing a buffalo is a matter of ijtihad (independent reasoning). Because in Arabia during the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and the Companions (and even today), buffaloes did not exist. Rather, this animal belongs purely to non-Arab regions. Those who classified it as a type of cow issued a fatwa permitting its sacrifice, and those who considered it a separate species issued a fatwa prohibiting its sacrifice. Clearly, this is not a difference in texts but a difference in ijtihad, and ijtihadi differences are not fundamentally called differences.
For example, if four people are traveling in a forest and the time for prayer arrives but the direction of the Qibla is unknown, each one, based on his own effort and ijtihad, faces a different direction and prays, considering it the Qibla. All four have prayed, although one faced east, another west, the third south, and the fourth north. Only one’s ijtihad was correct, the one who faced the Qibla. But no one would call this a fundamental or jurisprudential difference. A difference occurs when they are in a city with thousands of mosques, millions of people present who can correctly indicate the Qibla, yet someone prays facing another direction. Similarly, the issue of buffalo sacrifice is ijtihadi, so fatwas differ, but fundamentally they agree. Also, it should be known that those who issued fatwas against permissibility have kept precaution; no one has said it is haram (forbidden). This is your exaggeration.
Muhaddith Roopari states that in the Quran, Juz’ 8, Ruku 4, (بھیمۃ الانعام) four types are mentioned: sheep, goat, camel, cow; buffalo is not among these four. And the ruling regarding sacrifice is from (بھیمۃ الانعام). Therefore, buffalo sacrifice is not permissible. However, in the matter of Zakat, the ruling for buffalo is like that of the cow: when thirty buffaloes graze outside and their fodder has no price, then a one-year-old calf or heifer among them is subject to Zakat. Similarly, when the number of buffaloes reaches thirty, they graze outside and their fodder has no price, then a one-year-old male or female calf is Zakat.
It is remembered that some issues, due to precaution, have two aspects and one must act with caution. The father of Umm al-Mu’minin Sayyida Sawda (may Allah be pleased with her), Zam’ah’s slave woman, was raped by Uqbah ibn Abi Waqqas during the pre-Islamic era. A boy was born from this, who was raised by his mother. The adulterer died and bequeathed to his brother Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) that the boy of Zam’ah’s slave woman is mine, so take him into your custody. At the time of the conquest of Mecca, Sayyidna Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas (may Allah be pleased with him) took hold of this boy and said, “This is my nephew.” Zam’ah’s son said, “He is my father’s son, so he is my brother; I will take him.” The case was presented in the Prophet’s court, and the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
الولد للفراش وللعاجر الحجر
Meaning, the child belongs to the husband of the wife, and the adulterer is to be stoned. That is, he is unsuccessful and his punishment is stoning.
The child was entrusted to the brother of Sayyida Suda (RA), who also became the brother of Sayyida Suda (RA). However, Sayyida Suda (RA) was commanded to observe purdah from him because his appearance resembled that of a fornicator, which raised suspicion that he was born from the sperm of a fornicator. In this matter, considering the appearance, the command was to observe purdah, and considering the household in which he was born, he was regarded as their son, thus taking precaution into account. The same applies to the case of the buffalo. In this, precaution is to be observed in both aspects: paying zakat is a precaution, and not performing sacrifice is also a precaution. Therefore, the sacrifice of a buffalo is not permissible. Some have written that الجاموس نوع من البقر, meaning buffalo, is a type of cow, which may be correct from the perspective of zakat. Otherwise, it is clear that the buffalo is a different species.
Consider what the Ahl al-Hadith scholars are saying and what our benefactor is making them believe. Perhaps among jurists like them, all precautionary fatwas of Shariah are considered forbidden. This is called “what is black is my father’s year.”
Funeral Prayer: Quiet or Loud
They say all non-following Ahl al-Hadith recite the funeral prayer aloud. But Mufti Mubashir of Lashkar Taiba says that reciting the funeral prayer quietly is stronger.
Answer: Firstly, our brother Muhammad Ismail Jhangvi Abu Bilal is highly skilled in the art of sophistry. He has become accustomed to distorting the opposing party’s statements. Maulana Mubashir Ahmad Rabbani, may Allah preserve him, has nowhere issued a fatwa forbidding reciting the funeral prayer aloud.
We present his detailed fatwa before the readers. He states that in the funeral prayer, both loud (jahr) and quiet (sirran) recitation are correct. However, based on evidence, reciting quietly is better and preferable.
The evidences for reciting Surah Al-Fatiha are as follows:
➊ It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abu Umamah (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said:
السنة في الصلاة على الجنازة ان يقرا في التكبيرة الأولى بام القرآن مخافة ثم يكبر ثلاثا والتسليم عند الآخر
The Sunnah method in the funeral prayer is that in the first Takbir, Surah Al-Fatiha is recited in a low voice, then three Takbirs are said, and after the last Takbir, the Salam is given. That is, after the first Takbir, Surah Al-Fatiha is recited slowly, then in the remaining Takbirs, as clarified in other Ahadith, after the second Takbir, Durood is recited, then after the third Takbir, a supplication is made, and after the fourth Takbir, the Salam is given. Some authentic narrations also provide evidence for more than four Takbirs. See (Ahkam al-Janazah by Sheikh Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him)).
Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) has narrated
and from the same chain of narration
and Imam Ibn al-Jarud
that this is the mentioned hadith of Abu Umamah (may Allah be pleased with him).
ان السنة في الصلاة على الجنازة ان يكبر الامام ثم يقرأ بفاتحة الكتاب بعد التكبيرات الاولى سراً في نفسه ثم يصلى على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ويخلص الدعاء للجنازة في التكبيرات لا يقرا في شي منهن ثم يسلم سراً فى نفسه والسنة ان يفعل من وراء مثل ما فعل امامة
The Sunnah in the funeral prayer is that the Imam says Takbir, then after the first Takbir, recites Surah Al-Fatiha in a low voice, then (after the Takbir) sends blessings upon the Prophet ﷺ, then in the remaining Takbirs, sincerely prays for the deceased without reciting Qur’an during those Takbirs. Then he quietly concludes with Salam, and the Sunnah is that the followers also do what their Imam does.
And Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) says that
واصحاب النبي ﷺ لا يقولون بالسنة والحق الالسنة رسول الله ﷺ ان شاء الله تعالى
meaning when the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ say about an issue that this is Sunnah and truth, it simply means that this is the Prophetic Sunnah ﷺ. ان شاء الله تعالى
From these ahadith it is understood that reciting Surah Al-Fatiha quietly in the funeral prayer is Sunnah, and the words “saraafi nafsah mukhafatah” explicitly indicate this issue.
And the evidence for reciting aloud is from this hadith that
Sayyiduna ‘Awf bin Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) says that
صلی رسول على جنازة فحفظت من دعائه وهو يقول اللهم الغفرله وارحمه وعافه واعف عنه الحديث
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ led a funeral prayer; I memorized the supplication from your ﷺ prayer. You were saying: O Allah, forgive him, have mercy on him, and grant him well-being and pardon.
From this hadith it is understood that the Companion memorized this supplication from your ﷺ leading the funeral prayer, and this can only happen if you ﷺ recited aloud.
In any case, reciting aloud is explicitly established from Hadith, and reciting aloud is proven through reasoning. Therefore, reciting slowly is stronger and better. For details, refer to Allama Albani’s book
.
Read this passage repeatedly and consider what our brother is saying and what Abu Bilal Sahib is trying to extract from it. Whatever Maulana Rabbani has aptly stated is the position of the senior Ahl al-Hadith scholars. As Allama Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned
, Nawab Sahib
, the great Muhaddith Azmi (may Allah have mercy on him)
, Muhaddith Mubarakpuri (may Allah have mercy on him)
, Muhaddith Rahmani (may Allah have mercy on him)
, and Muhaddith Rupdi (may Allah have mercy on him)
have all, in their supportive fatwas, established from the authentic hadith of Sayyiduna ‘Awf ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him)
that the funeral prayer is recited aloud. However, the Hanafi school denies this Sunnah, and Abu Bilal is trying to cover it up through trickery.
The Place of Qunoot in Witr
They say all Wahhabis say, rather they act upon it, that the supplication of Qunoot in Witr should be after Ruku, but Mufti Mubashir of Lashkar-e-Taiba says that it is better before Ruku.
Answer: Firstly: I, rather the entire Ahl-e-Hadith group here, perform Qunoot in Witr before Ruku. It is clear that you have misrepresented that all Wahhabis act upon supplication after Ruku.
Secondly: Maulana Mubashir Ahmad Rabbani has presented from
a correct, explicit, Marfoo (attributed to the Prophet), and continuous hadith from Sayyiduna Abi bin Ka’b (RA) that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to supplicate Qunoot in Witr before Ruku
. Therefore, attributing it to Rabbani Sahib by Abu Bilal and defaming Ahl-e-Hadith is misrepresentation because what he has quoted is a Prophetic hadith which is exactly the practice of Ahl-e-Hadith.
Thirdly: Those who have stated the place of supplication after Ruku do not differentiate between Qunoot Nazilah and Qunoot Witr. As Imam Bukhari has
narrated hadiths related to Qunoot Nazilah. From this chapter’s translation, some Ahl-e-Hadith have been confused and have attributed narrations from Sayyiduna Anas (RA) to Qunoot Witr (صلوۃ الرسول), whereas the researcher
has given a detailed refutation of this. As for the author of
, if he makes this difference clear, then the objection is that this issue was also different among the Companions, as mentioned in
, and the Companions are the standard of truth according to the author of Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith.
Friday Prayer Without Khutbah
Shawkani and Nawab Siddiq Hasan Khan, who are non-Muqallid, state that Jumu’ah prayer is valid without a Khutbah. Rawdhah al-Nadiyyah and Waheed al-Zaman say that Jumu’ah is not valid without a Khutbah.
Answer: Firstly: Nawab Sahib has undoubtedly stated this, but attributing this view to Allama Shawkani is incorrect. Yes, he did deny its obligation and classified it as a confirmed Sunnah.
Secondly: Contrary to Nawab Sahib’s statement, the practice of Ahl al-Hadith is not like that, and no example can be presented where Ahl al-Hadith perform Jumu’ah prayer without a Khutbah. Rather, the great Muhaddith Azmi Abadi states that the truth is with the majority that the Khutbah is obligatory.
Thirdly: In the opinion that Jumu’ah prayer is valid without a Khutbah, Nawab Sahib is not only unique but is accompanied by the well-known Tabi‘i Imam Hasan al-Basri (may Allah be pleased with him), Imam Ibn Sirin (may Allah be pleased with him), Dawud al-Zahiri (may Allah have mercy on him), and Allama Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him).
So, the answer that will be given to the author of the sayings of Imam Hasan al-Basri and Imam Ibn Sirin should be considered as our answer to Nawab Sahib as well.
Fourthly: The subtle evidences by which the obligation of the Khutbah for Jumu’ah is proven also prove sitting between the two Khutbahs and delivering the Khutbah while standing. But how unfortunate it is that these people consider the Khutbah as a fard (obligatory) but sitting in between as Sunnah.
Imam Ibn Hazm, discussing their contradictions, writes that
ثم تناقض فقالا ان خطب جالسا اجزاه وان خطب خطبة واحد اجزاء وان لم يخطب لم يجزه
Then there is a contradiction in their statements; they say that if the sermon is delivered sitting or if only one sermon is given, it suffices. And if the sermon is not given, it is not permissible. (Even though their proof is based on the same argument)
Fifthly: Hazrat Nawab Sahib was a prolific author and (الروضتہ الندیہ) is a book from his early period. While Sharh Muslim is among his later books, which the author began writing in 1298 AH and published from Matba Al-Siddiqi Bhopal in 1301 AH. In it, he disagrees with names like Hasan Basri, etc., stating that the sermon is obligatory and a condition for the Friday prayer.
Which proves that they had withdrawn from their earlier position. But if Abu Bilal Sahib is still not satisfied and calls it a disagreement, and later on Nawab Sahib’s earlier fatwa, then it is clear that according to the Hanafis, the sermon (khutbah) is a condition (obligatory) for the Friday prayer, and their evidence is that its abandonment by the Prophet ﷺ is not proven.
This same evidence has been given by Imam Bayhaqi
. However, Allama Mardini Hanafi has refuted this by saying that it is erroneous to establish its obligation solely based on the prophetic practice ﷺ.
Sixthly: You never forget Nawab Sahib’s fatwa, but you have never reflected on your own jurisprudence. There are fatwas in Hanafi jurisprudence that are a thousand times worse than his fatwa. For example, it is permissible to deliver the sermon without purification. In fact, even if the major ritual bath (ghusl janabat) has not been performed, the sermon is still permissible. Then, according to you, the sermon is only one obligation and it is fulfilled merely by saying الحمد للہ، سبحان الله، لا الہ الا اللہ.
If you are Hanafi, then demonstrate this practice: deliver the sermon after the call to prayer without performing ghusl, which consists only of الحمدللہ and nothing else. Then perform the ghusl janabat and tell the people how you have followed Hanafi jurisprudence. Then observe the divine power and see what every believer, whether Deobandi or anyone else, says to you. But it is strongly expected that you will not have the courage to do this.
The Sunnah method of reciting the Qur’an in prayer
Wahid al-Zaman writes that in every Rak’ah اعوذ باللہ should be recited (ھدیة المھدی). Nawab Sahib states that at the beginning of the prayer, only the Sunnah is to be recited.
Answer: Firstly: According to Qazi Abu Yusuf, Ta’awwudh is subordinate to Thana (praise), which is why both the Imam and the follower recite it. Whereas Imam Abu Hanifa’s ruling is that Ta’awwudh is for the recitation only, so only the Imam recites it.
It is clear that this is a severe difference of opinion. If you find a solution to this, then you may inform us of the resolution of this difference. If you say that the ruling is based on the Imam’s opinion and we do not accept Qazi Abu Yusuf’s view, then we say that
we accepted Nawab Sahib’s ruling because it is correct and abandoned Wahid al-Zaman’s opinion due to lack of evidence. Hazrat Nawab Sahib states that
فقد ثبت بالاحاديث الصحيحة ان النبى ما كان يفعله بعد الاستفتاح قبل القرأة ولفظه اعوذ بالله السميع العليم من الشيطان الرجيم من همزه ونفخه ونفثه
The summary is that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ used to recite Ta’awwudh before the Qur’an at the beginning of the prayer. This narration is reported from Hazrat Abu Saeed al-Khudri in Musnad Ahmad and Sunan al-Arba’ah.
Secondly: Why is Wahid al-Zaman the only one singled out, while Hasan al-Basri, Ata ibn Abi Rabah, and Ibrahim al-Nakhfi also hold the same position that Ta’awwudh is recommended at the beginning of every Rak’ah.
In fact, Imam Ibn Hazm also narrated this same opinion from Imam Abu Hanifa.
The Legitimacy of Dhikr in Ruku and Sajdah
Nawab Sahib states that the tasbihat in ruku and sajdah are Sunnah, while Badur al-Ahlah Waheed al-Zaman writes that they are obligatory.
Answer: Firstly, has anyone among them denied the legitimacy of these tasbihat? Since no denial is reported, you are making a verbal dispute out of a difference of opinion. Then it should be clear to you that Nawab Sahib has considered the obligatory to be preferable.
Similarly, Imam al-Haqq ibn Rahawiyah, Imam Ahmad ibn Muqbil, Imam Hasan al-Basri, and Allama Khattabi hold the same position.
The proof for it being obligatory is that the Prophet ﷺ consistently observed the tasbihs. If the prayer could be performed without them, the Prophet ﷺ would have sometimes omitted them to indicate permissibility. You may or may not remember that with the same reasoning, you had established the sermon for Friday prayer as obligatory and compulsory. But here, when tasbihs are being proven obligatory by the same reasoning, you are troubled by it.
Secondly: You are not concerned with the difference of opinion; the real issue is that obligation is burdensome for you. Because according to the Hanafi school, bowing only occurs by bending.
Allama Halabi states that
اوترك التسبيح بالكلية جازت صلوته لعدم ركنيته
Meaning, if one deliberately omits all the tasbihs of bowing and prostration, their prayer is valid.
Then the argument given is no less subtle than this: The Quran mentions bowing, and bowing literally means only bending.
انا للہ وانا الیہ راجعون
But who would dare disrespectfully ask that bowing is a matter of worship? It should be understood not linguistically but in the light of the Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ. The statement of Imam Abu Hanifa’s student Abi Mati’ Balghi is that the tasbihs of bowing and prostration are pillars and obligatory parts of the prayer. Without them, the prayer is not valid. Commenting on this, the commentator of Munyat al-Musalli says that this statement is anomalous.
Thank God, he has rarely said this; if a biased person of today were hidden, he would have been labeled as a non-follower Wahhabi, Najdi Imams’ blasphemer, and ignorant.
The False Accusation of the Author of Tuhfa Ahl al-Hadith
It is stated that Nawab Sahib writes that it is permissible to write Qiblah and Ka’bah.
Answer: Firstly, if it is only about writing the words, then obviously it is permissible to write both Qiblah and Ka’bah for Baytullah. These words have been used in the Quran for Baytullah. And if the author’s intention is that Nawab Sahib gave a fatwa permitting writing Qiblah and Ka’bah to some scholar or teacher, then Abu Bilal Sahib should prove any such writing of Nawab Sahib without any interpretation. Otherwise, fear the severe warning of لعنت اللہ علی الکازبین.
Secondly, the stance of Ahl-e-Hadith is that the rulings of the true religion are apparent. No ruling of Shariah is based on the inner meaning. Because of this, no fatwa or statement in Ahl-e-Hadith remains limited only to a private gathering so that the ruling of Shariah does not reach the public. Rather, the dealings of Ahl-e-Hadith that occur publicly are the same as those stated in private gatherings. In short, our apparent and inner meanings are the same. If, in our view, any scholar had a fatwa permitting Qiblah and Ka’bah, we would openly state it and mention it with the titles of scholars in our meetings and conferences. However, in any advertisement, pamphlet, or book publication, we have never written Qiblah and Ka’bah with the titles of any scholar or researcher, nor can a single example of this be presented. Moreover, the dealings of Ahl-e-Hadith themselves are clear evidence of the falsehood and fabrication of this claim.
Ruling on Women Visiting Graves
At the beginning of Islam, the Prophet ﷺ forbade visiting graves. Then this ruling was abrogated, and the Prophet ﷺ permitted visiting graves. Hazrat Buraydah Aslami narrates that
قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كنت نهيتكم عن زيارة القبور فزوروها
“That is, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said that I used to forbid you from visiting graves, but now visit them.”
There is a difference of opinion in the explanation and interpretation of this hadith as to whether women are included in this permission or not. Among the Ummah, there has been a difference of opinion from the beginning. Hazrat Aisha (RA) believed in absolute permissibility, and this is also the position of the majority.
Whereas some scholars believe that women are not included in this permission. Leaving others aside, your Allama Ayni Hanafi, the commentator of Bukhari, states that
وحاصل الكلام أن زيارة القبور مكروهة للنساء بل حرام في هذا الزمان
“In summary, visiting graves is disliked for women, and in this era, it is forbidden.”
In Fatawa Ta Tarakhaniya, it is written that
سئل القاضي عن جواز خروج النساء الى المقابر قال لايسثال عن الجواز والفساد في مثل هذا وانما يسأل عن مقدار ما يلحقها من اللعن فيها واعلم انها كلما قصدت الخروج كانت فى لعنة الله وملائكة اذا خرجت تحفها الشياطين من كل جانب واذا انت القبور يلعنها روح الميت واذا رجعت كانت في لعنة الله
meaning a question was asked to Imam Qazi whether it is permissible for women to go to the cemetery or not? He replied that the question of permissibility or impermissibility does not arise in such a place. The question should be how much curse falls upon that woman when she intends to go from her house towards the cemetery. She is under the curse of Allah Almighty and the angels when she leaves the house; devils surround her from all sides. When she reaches the cemetery, the soul of the deceased curses her, and when she returns, she is under the curse of Allah.
Whereas Imam Abu Hanifa’s fatwa is that women are permitted to visit graves.
For this reason, the elders of Diyabna have acknowledged that there is a difference of opinion among Hanafi jurists on this issue.
The commentator of Mishkat, Maulana Qutbuddin Hanafi, states that some say the permission has become general for both men and women, so it was not allowed before but now it is correct for women to visit graves, and some say that the permission was only for men and not for women. The apparent meaning of the hadith supports this view.
Similarly, Maulana Mahmood Hasan Khan Hanafi Deobandi has openly acknowledged in
, and Maulana Muhammad Taqi Usmani Deobandi in
, that there is a difference of opinion among the Hanafis regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of women visiting graves. But how unfortunate it is that our contemporary Abu Bilal did not notice this internal difference but instead attributed the difference to the Ahl al-Hadith scholars, claiming that Maulvi Sanaullah supports permissibility while Maulvi Sharaf supports impermissibility.
Regardless of the disagreement, just look at how disrespectful Jhangvi Sahib’s tone is. He was a man of the Muslim Ummah, a warrior who spent his entire life refuting the disbelievers, and due to his God-given abilities, he was a hero of the blessed Ummah. Upon his death, Maulana Muhammad Sulaiman Nadvi wrote that the deceased was a great warrior soldier of Islam. Whoever attacked Islam with tongue or pen, the soldier who advanced foremost in defense was always him. May Allah grant this warrior of Islam the ranks and stages of martyrdom. آمین
Maulana Abdul Majid Daryabadi Hanafi Deobandi states that
He should be called an Imam in the art of debate. Especially against Arya Samajists, who were not only ignorant and ill-mannered but also foul-mouthed. And at the beginning of the century, their fitnah was the greatest fitnah of that time. If Maulvi Sanaullah had faced them, who knows how far the Muslims’ submissive intimidation would have reached.
If the testimonies of the senior scholars of Deoband are compiled in this regard, a fairly substantial book can be prepared, but unfortunately, Mr. Jhangvi does not feel any shame in addressing this warrior of Islam as Maulvi Sanaullah.
His approach proves that the objection of the Barelvi community that the Deobandis are blasphemers has some truth in it.
Yes indeed! The discussion was about the differences among the Ahl-e-Hadith scholars, so brother, if you call this difference discord, then please answer the differences among the Hanafi jurists on the same issue.
First Adhan of Friday
It is stated that the first call to Friday prayer (Adhan) is an innovation (Bid’ah). The first call to Friday prayer is Sunnah.
Answer: Firstly, we have reviewed Fatawa Thanaiya and there is no such fatwa in volume two.
Secondly, no one has called it an innovation. Sheikh-ul-Islam had written it as the Uthmani Sunnah. Following this, Hakim Abdul Razzaq states that if the Adhan is given in the market outside the city, it will be the Uthmani Sunnah; otherwise, the commonly practiced method will be an innovation.
In short, the one who called it an innovation did not call the Uthmani Adhan an innovation but declared the commonly practiced method as an innovation. However, making a mountain out of a molehill is the habit of Jhangvi Sahib. He declared the Adhan itself as an innovation in absolute terms.
These are the ones who claim to be the custodians of truth and wear the turban to join the ranks of scholars. Their scholarly competence is such that they could not understand the Urdu text and are challenging the mountains of knowledge of Ahl-e-Hadith.
Wiping over Socks
It is stated that Maulvi Sanaullah Sahib is of the opinion, and Sharafuddin is not.
Answer: Firstly: Undoubtedly, Maulana Sharafuddin (may Allah have mercy on him) differed with Hazrat Amir Tasri (may Allah be pleased with him), and the nature of the difference is that he considered the hadith presented by Hazrat Amir Tasri to be weak. However, the reality is that his criticism is not correct, and the hadiths permitting wiping over socks are authentic.
and refer to the book “Masah over Socks” authored by Sheikh Muhammad Yahya Gondalvi (may Allah preserve him).
Secondly: The practice of Ahl al-Hadith is also in accordance with the fatwa of Hazrat Amir Tasri. In fact, some Hanafis, in severe cold, even become staunch non-followers and wipe over socks. Moreover, in one narration, Imam Abu Hanifa also withdrew his earlier ruling of prohibition. Aba Maqatil Samarqandi narrates that
دخلت على أبي حنيفة في مرضه الذي مات فيه فدعا بماء فتوضأ و عليه جوربان فمسح عليهما
That is, when I went to attend Imam Abu Hanifa during his death illness, he ordered water to be brought and performed ablution, wiping over the socks on his feet.
The author of Hidayah has also mentioned this retraction that
وعنه أنه رجع الى قولهما وعليه الفتوى
That is, Imam Abu Hanifa retracted his earlier fatwa and said that wiping over socks is permissible and the fatwa is on that. However, the general Hanafi scholars deny this and follow the fatwa of their Imam which he had retracted. Obviously, this is their disagreement with their Imam.
Ruling on the Mihrab in the Mosque
It is stated that in Fatawa Thanaiya it is written that the mosque’s mihrab resembles that of Jews and Christians. Whereas Juna Garhi writes that it is permissible.
Answer: Firstly: The author of Tuhfa Ahl-e-Hadith is explicitly lying and committing a 100% fraud by claiming that in Fatawa Thanaiya the established mosque mihrab is likened to that of Jews and Christians. Rather, in Fatawa Thanaiya there are nearly a dozen scholars’ fatwas stating that the established mosque mihrab is permissible. If Muhammadi Sahib proves his claim from Fatawa Thanaiya, we will reward him; otherwise, لعنت اللہ علی الکازبین he should accept the reward.
Secondly: Yes, however, in your view this is an innovation. Mulla Ali al-Qari states that
ان المحاريب من المحدثات بعده ومن ثم كره جمع من السلف اتخاذها والصلاة فيها
Meaning, making a mihrab in the mosque is an innovation adopted after the Prophet ﷺ, and all the Imams (Hanafis) consider making it and praying inside it as disliked.
The commentator of Sunan Abi Dawood, Hazrat Maulana Muhammad Shams-ul-Haq Muhaddith Azimabadi, commenting on the above statement writes that
(قلت ماقاله القارى من أن المحاريب من المحدثات بعدل فيه نظرلان وجود المحراب زمن النبي يثبت من بعض الروايات اخرج البيهقي في السنن الكبرى)
(وايضاً لا يكره الصلوة فى المحاريب ومن ذهب الى الكراهة فعليه البنية ولا يسمع كلام أحد من غير دليل ولا برهان)
Meaning, I say that there is a problem with Mulla Ali al-Qari counting the mihrab as an innovation. Because the existence of the mihrab during the time of the Prophet ﷺ is proven from some ahadith, as narrated by Bayhaqi in Sunan. Similarly, praying in it is not disliked, and whoever claims it is disliked must provide evidence. Without proof and argument, no one’s statement is accepted. The narration referred to by Hazrat Muhaddith Azimabadi is present in
.
In short, according to Ahl-e-Hadith, making the established mihrab in the mosque is permissible. Those who call it an innovation and praying inside it disliked are the elders of Jhangvi Sahib. It is now their choice whether to demolish the mihrabs in their mosques to end the innovation or to count themselves among the innovators and continue committing the forbidden act by praying in the mihrab or repent from it. If you ask us, we sincerely advise you to abandon the ally altogether and base your life on acting according to the Hadith. Because considering the opinions of men as proof against the Book and Sunnah is the worst religious innovation. May Allah grant you success; if you accept this advice, I assure you that there will be no need to demolish the mihrab nor will you commit a forbidden act.
Purity and Impurity of Money
They say that semen is pure.
Semen is impure.
Answer: Firstly: In the sense that Imam Abu Hanifa and others have called semen impure, no Ahl-e-Hadith scholar has declared semen impure in this sense; all say it is pure. Yes, in this sense it is called impure that washing and rubbing it off is a prescribed method for its removal. Muhaddith Mubarakpuri says that
قلت لا شك أن المنى نجس بمعنى انه مامور بازالته غسلا اومسحا اوفر كا او حتا او سلتا أو حكا لكن من قال بنجاسته كالامام ابي حنفية والامام مالك لم يقل بنجاسته بهذا المعنى ابكار المتن ص ٤١
meaning I say that undoubtedly and without doubt semen is impure in this sense that one is religiously commanded to wash, rub, scrape, or wipe it off. But those who call it impure, for example Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik, do not declare it impure in this sense. This same point has been made by Allama Shawkai
and Maulana Ubaidullah Rahmani
. It is regrettable that Jhungvi Sahib, due to ignorance, neither understands the matter himself nor refrains from blaming the scholars of Ahl-e-Hadith.
Secondly: Undoubtedly, according to the Hanafis, semen is impure but they do not consider its impurity severe. It is in Fatawa Alamgiri
والصحيح بقاء اثر المنى بعد الفرك لا يضر
meaning when semen dries, it is correct that the effect remaining after contact and rubbing is not harmful.
It is obvious that dry impurity cannot be purified by rubbing or contact, especially when its effects remain on clothes etc. It is clear that the Hanafis also do not believe in the severity of its impurity.
Thirdly: It is obvious that declaring semen impure and then saying its effects are not harmful are two contradictory statements.
Differences in Organizational Matters Among Ahl al-Hadith
Human beings are weak, powerless, and humble. Their intellect, knowledge, and resources are limited, which is why there are differences in ranks among humans, and it is necessary to consider these differences.
Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) was a rightly guided Caliph and a devoted companion. No one among the Ahl al-Sunnah has dared or had the courage to criticize his greatness and stature to this day; rather, all schools of thought, despite their jurisprudential differences, acknowledge that he was among the early predecessors. Filled with love for the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, following the Prophet was their constant practice. Because of this adherence to the Prophet’s example, the Prophet ﷺ gave him glad tidings of Paradise in this world and even included his Sunnah within his own Sunnah.
But you will remember that when the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was made, the Prophet ﷺ accepted even the most severe conditions of the disbelievers, and Hazrat Umar Farooq (RA) disagreed with the Prophet ﷺ on this matter. In fact, generally, the companions considered this treaty a weakness for Islam. So, does anyone have the right to say that the companions of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ were not loyal to him? They had differences of opinion with him.
However, we say no; the decision of the Prophet ﷺ was wise and under divine revelation, which the companions could not perceive. Later events made it clear that the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was beneficial for the Muslims.
Moreover, having differences of opinion in some organizational matters cannot be termed as sectarianism. Otherwise, you would have to admit that two sects of Muslims were formed at the time of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.
You should also know that denying something due to ignorance or lack of knowledge does not legally fall under sectarianism or disagreement. For example, Zaid says that Adnan is the maternal uncle of Jameela, while Umar says that Adnan was not the real brother of Jameela because Jameela’s maternal grandfather had adopted Adnan as a son, so he is not her maternal uncle, and the marriage between Adnan and Jameela is permissible. A wise person can say this is a difference of opinion, but no sensible person would say that Zaid is unaware of the relationship between Adnan and Jameela, while Umar is knowledgeable.
When the Qiblah was changed, the companions, while praying, turned their faces towards the Kaaba instead of Bayt al-Maqdis under the leadership of the Prophet ﷺ. Hazrat Bara bin Azib (RA) narrates that when the command to change the Qiblah was revealed, a person prayed with the Prophet ﷺ. After the prayer, this person passed by a group of Ansar who were praying Asr facing Bayt al-Maqdis. This person swore that he had prayed with the Prophet ﷺ facing the Kaaba. So, that group of Ansar turned towards the Kaaba.
Now can any sane person say that this group of Ansar disagreed with the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and that at the time of the change of Qibla, the Muslims split into two groups? No, absolutely not! Because knowledge is a prerequisite for disagreement. Every knowledgeable person will say that the group of Ansar did not know about the change of Qibla.
We can present dozens of such examples from our blessed Ummah. But our Jhungvi Sahib makes every matter appear as a disagreement. Wherever there is some partial organizational difference between two Ahl al-Hadith groups, he portrays it as a disagreement. Whether it is Lashkar-e-Taiba or Force, etc., he sees disagreement in them. Then, in this regard, while spreading falsehood, he does not even apply a bit of shame or modesty. At one point, he states:
“The non-following (ghair muqallid) Muslims do not pray behind other non-followers. They consider relationships with other non-followers forbidden and even consider it forbidden to perform their funeral prayers.”
But for that, there is no proof, you ignorant one. If there is any semblance of truth in your statement, then cite the opinion of any authoritative scholar with reference, otherwise fear the severe warning of لعنت اللہ علی الکازبین that you will die and lie in the grave.
The words of an ignorant and foolish person are never considered proof. It was in 1981 that I was sitting at the railway station Gajar Gola near Hafizabad, waiting for the train. There, a person prayed facing south on the bench. When he finished the prayer, I thought it was a matter of concern, and he said that he was just reading the Quran today, and under one verse, its translation was written:
“Wherever you turn, there is the face of Allah?” I explained to him the meaning of the verse from Surah Al-Baqarah. He was fortunate, accepted it, and thanked me. Believe me, he was bearded and had prayed according to the Hanafi method.
I could not find out whether he was Barelvi or Deobandi; this is a completely true incident. وكفى بالله شهيداً So, are we justified in saying that facing the Kaaba is not a condition according to the Hanafis? Or at least some of them act this way? No, absolutely not, because the words and actions of an ignorant person are not proof. You can pick up any fatwa compiled in the recent past and see that the public asks such questions from scholars that the mufti feels like crying over the religious state of the people. This is a reality whose denial is like denying the sun at noon.
So is it permissible to hold these things against each other’s group and defame them? Absolutely not, because the actions of the public are not valid in Shariah, nor is the majority in Pakistan Hanafi. Even in its parliament, the majority are those who claim to be Hanafi. But when Nawaz Sharif tried to implement Shariah and it came time to get its approval from the parliament, he failed miserably. So do we now have the right to say that Hanafi school does not want Shariah? My brother, no. But unfortunately, Jhangvi Sahib is deprived of both religion and worldly knowledge. Whenever he finds a statement from anywhere, he drags it to reject Wahhabism.
He says that the dispute between Youth Force and Lashkar-e-Taiba is, God forbid, slogan shouting against each other; if a cleric of one group is killed, the other says he is a carcass. Curses have even been sent against each other.
It is not known whether all these things were instilled in Jhangvi Sahib by Satan. Otherwise, some Mufti from Lashkar-e-Taiba or Youth Force would have issued a fatwa on it. The writer denies this with full certainty that Jhangvi Sahib cannot present any evidence for his claim. All these statements are just his chest-thumping.
But we tell you that there are two branches of Hanafism in the Indian subcontinent: Barelvi and Deobandi. The founder of the Barelvi sect issued a fatwa declaring the entire Deobandi sect as disbelievers and apostates. In fact, he also obtained a fatwa of their disbelief and apostasy from the Two Holy Mosques, which is published and available under the title “Husam al-Haramayn.” And the titles that the Deobandis have given to the Barelvis are not hidden from anyone. Their scholars commonly use terms like innovator, polytheist, worshipper of graves, etc., in their speeches. Both are Hanafi; the Deobandis say they are Hanafi, and the Barelvis say they are raw and pink Wahhabis. And we are the sole contractors of Hanafism, but when they give arguments for the obligation of Taqlid (imitation), both parties say that one benefit of Taqlid is that it prevents discord.
But who will ask them that it was he who did not save your home from discord? First, you were Hanafi, then you became Deobandi and Barelvi, then Hayati and Mamati. The Hayatis say the Mamatis are polytheists, and the Mamatis say the Hayatis are polytheists. Jhangvi Sahib did not have the courage to argue about the rationality of this matter. However, he escaped by saying that Barelvis are non-followers (ghair muqallid). Their proof of non-followership is that some of their customs are not established in Hanafi jurisprudence. Although self-desires exist in both these parties. Both parties do not accept some issues of Hanafi jurisprudence. For example:
➊ In jurisprudence, it is written that taking payment for teaching Quran, leading prayer, and delivering sermons is not permissible. Yet both these parties accept payment.
➋ In jurisprudence, praying the funeral prayer in absentia is not permissible, yet both parties perform it.
➌ In Hanafi jurisprudence, there is no Friday prayer or Eid prayers in villages. Yet both parties establish Friday and Eid prayers in villages.
➍ Imam Abu Hanifa’s fatwa is that the ‘Aqiqah’ of a girl or boy should not be done.
In Fatawa Alamgiri, it is written that this indicates dislike (haram).
Maulvi Ghulam Rasool Saeedi Barelvi, although both parties consider ‘Aqiqah’ as Sunnah and perform it.
➎ According to Imam Abu Hanifa, Waqf (endowment) is not permissible. In Hidayah it is stated that
قال أبو حنيفة لا يزول ملك الوقف عن الوقف الا ان يحكم به الحاكم
meaning Imam Abu Hanifa says that the ownership of the person making the Waqf does not cease until the ruler orders it.
In its explanation, Ibn Humam says that
في المبسوط من قوله كان ابو حنيفة لا يجيز الوقف وهو ما اراد المصنف
meaning in Mabsut, Imam Abu Hanifa did not consider Waqf permissible. And this is the meaning of the mentioned statement in the author of Hidayah.
But both Barelvi and Deobandi accept Waqf, and the majority of their madrasas and mosques are managed through Waqf income.
➏ Imam Abu Hanifa considered fasting six days at the beginning of Shawwal as disliked (makruh).
But both Deobandi and Barelvi fast and consider it Sunnah and mustahabb.
➐ Imam Abu Hanifa considered Muzara’ah (sharecropping) impermissible.
But both Barelvi and Deobandi accept Muzara’ah.
➑ Imam Abu Hanifa considered not cutting hair and nails during the ten days of Hajj as merely permissible (mubah), whereas Deobandi and Barelvi consider it Sunnah and do not cut them.
➒ According to Imam Abu Hanifa, selling eggs is not permissible.
But contrary to this, both Hanafi Barelvi and Hanafi Deobandi consider selling eggs permissible; some have even made it a permanent business.
➓ It has already been stated that Imam Abu Hanifa forbade following (taqlid) him, whereas both your groups consider following the Imam obligatory.
The Complete Ten Principles
We have presented these ten issues as examples. If we start writing on this, by the grace of Allah, we can present hundreds of examples. If merely on one point a person differs from the Imam, he ceases to be a follower, then both of you would be proven non-followers, and your claim of following is false.
